Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 389.
Instituted on : 10.07.2017.
Decided on : 01.03.2019.
Parveen Rohilla aged about 40 years, son of Sh. Rajender Singh Rohilla resident of House No.138, Sector-7, Gohana Distt. Sonipat.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- United India Insurance Company Ltd. Head Office 24, Whites Road Cnenai-600014, CIN U93090TN1938Go1000108, through its Managing Director/Authorized signatory.
- United India Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, 323/21, Delhi Road, Jawahar Market, Opposite Model Town, Rohtak through its Divisional Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.S.S.Gehlawat, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant insured his vehicle bearing no.HR-11D-9798 with the opposite parties vide policy no.1112003115P111792876 from 05.01.2016 to 04.01.2017 with sum assured Rs.53186/-. That the alleged vehicle met with an accident on 20.11.2016 near VPO Ghillour District Rohtak and was badly damaged. That complainant informed the opposite party regarding the damages and the opposite parties deputed the surveyor and he paid an amount of Rs.2100/- as surveyor fee. That on asking of the surveyor, the complainant got repaired his vehicle and incurred Rs.53186/- and submitted the bill and other relevant documents with the opposite parties for getting the claim of vehicle. But the opposite parties have repudiated the claim vide letter dated 31.03.2017 on the ground that the driving licence was not valid on the date of accident and same was renewed on 27.12.2016. That the repudiation of claim by the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay the claim of Rs.53186/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that DL was not valid because as per Section 14 of the M.V. Act the D.L. should be renewed within 30 days from the period of its expiry, but the D.L. was renewed on dated 27.12.2016 after a gap of 58 days. That at the time of accident i.e. 20.11.2016 the D.L. was not valid and effective. As per respondent, the DL was not renewed from the date of expiry i.e. 29.10.2016. The Claim was rightly repudiated as “No Claim” in this case. It is wrong that the complainant paid Rs.53186/- for the repair of the said vehicle. According to the surveyor the net loss was assessed Rs.32907/-. But as the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle in question at the time of accident, hence the claim was rightly repudiated by the OPs. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OP has tendered affidavit Ex.R1/A, Ex.R1/B, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After perusal of the documents it is observed that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on dated 20.11.2016 near V.P.O.Ghillour, District Rohtak and suffered damages in his car. The claim was lodged with the respondent insurance company. The insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 31.03.2017 on the ground that the driving licence was not renewed on the date of accident and same was renewed on dated 27.12.2016 after a gap of 58 days. They also submitted that the driving licence of the complainant was expired on dated 29.10.2016 so the claim of the complainant is not payable. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. The respondent officials summoned a witness from the office of SDM , Gohana namely Kapil Kumar who made a statement before this Forum that driving licence of Mr. Parveen Rohilla was initially issued on dated 30.10.1996 to 29.10.2001 and thereafter the same was renewed from 14.12.2006 to 13.12.2011 . Thereafter the licence of Mr. Parveen Rohilla was again renewed on dated 13.01.2012 to 13.12.2016. He further submitted that now the licence of Mr. Parveen Rohilla is valid upto 08.10.2027 and he has a valid and effective driving licence to drive LMV(non transport vehicle) and he also produced the photocopy of his register as Ex.R7. He further submitted that he had also seen Ex.R8 in which the transaction detail has been mentioned on 30.10.1996 to 29.10.2016. He compared this entry mentioned in Ex.R8 with the original register which was brought by him from his office and stated that this type of detail which is mentioned in Ex.R8 is not mentioned in their register and there is a technical fault in the transaction detail as mentioned in Ex.R8.
6. After perusal of the statement and document Ex.R7, the photocopy of register maintained by the Licensing Authority Gohana, we came to the conclusion that the complainant was having a valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle on 20.11.2016. Through this complaint, the complainant has demanded an amount of Rs.53186/- which was spent by him on the repair of the vehicle alongwith other amount of Rs.25000/- as compensation and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses. To prove this fact, complainant has placed on record copy of bill Ex.C5. On the other hand, respondents have placed on record survey report prepared by Sh. Vikas Bansal regarding the damages suffered by the complainant in his vehicle. As per this report, the surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs.32907/- on account of damages suffered by the complainant in his favour after deducting the excess policy clause and in our view, the complainant is entitled for the alleged amount.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.32907/-(Rupees thirty two thousand nine hundred and seven only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 10.07.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
9. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
01.03.3019
....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
…………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
